Validity and reliability of the Chinese version of the Daily Living Self-Efficacy Scale among stroke patients

Abstract

The aim of this study was to examine the reliability and validity of the Chinese version of the Daily Living Self-Efficacy Scale (DLSES) in stroke patients. In total, 172 participants were recruited from a local hospital in China. The internal consistent reliability and convergent validity of the total scale and activities of daily living (ADL) and psychosocial functioning subscales were examined and factor analysis was carried out. Cronbach's αs for the Chinese version of the DLSES, ADL subscale, and psychosocial subscale were 0.96, 0.90, and 0.95, respectively. In the factor analysis, two factors (ADL and psychosocial functioning) were extracted, explaining 84.4% of the total variance in self-efficacy (χ/d.f.=2.19, root mean square error of approximation=0.08, normed fit index=0.95, comparative fit index=0.98, incremental fit index=0.98). Convergent validity was confirmed by positive relationships between the Chinese version of the DLSES and the Modified Fall Efficacy Scale (r=0.87). The ADL subscale was associated positively with the Barthel Index (r=0.74) and the psychosocial functioning subscale was associated negatively with the Functional Activities Questionnaire (r=-0.73) and Center for Epidemiologic Studies Depression Scale (r=-0.44). The Chinese version of the DLSES was shown to be a reliable and valid measure of self-efficacy in stroke patients.

The outcome measures for loss of functionality in the activities of daily living of adults after stroke: a systematic review

“…Usually, an acceptable overall follow-up rate is considered to be 80% or more of participants whose exposures were measured at baseline. In 6 studies, 27,38,40,42,54 this percentage was lower than 20%. Only in 13 [25][26][27]29,30,32,33,[41][42][43]50,51,58 studies were key potential confounding variables measured and adjusted for, such as by statistical adjustment for baseline differences; in other studies this process was not reported.…”

“…The assessment of the studies through the QAT provided a more specific overview of the quality of the studies tracked by the review. Only 16 25,28,31,32,34,36,42,43,[47][48][49][50][51][52][53]62 of the 39 studies were published after the publication of the COSMIN checklist and these guidelines were not followed in the majority of the included studies; however, according to the QAT, the studies published after 2010 do seem to have higher quality.…”

“…30 The majority of the participants were in their mid to late 60s, with mean ages ranging from 53 ± 13 years 56 to 77.8 ± 7.5 years. 35 The most represented languages were Chinese 27,28,36,[40][41][42][43]53,62 and English, 31,34,45,46,55 with 10 and 5 validated tools, respectively. The measurement properties for each version of each tool are summarized in Table 2.…”

“…The most commonly used tools were: The Frenchay Activities Index (FAI), validated in Chinese, 43 Brazilian, 50 English, 54 and Dutch 55 ; the Activity Card Sort (ACS), validated in Chinese 27 and Israeli 38 ; the Daily Living Self-Efficacy Scale (DLSES), validated in Chinese 42 and Australian English 47 ; the Reintegration to Normal Living Index (RNLI), validated in Chinese 53 and Australian English 59 ; the Functional Independence Measure (FIM), validated in French-Canadian 26 and Persian. 51 Additionally, two further studies included the FIM instrument, one 49 in Japanese validating its use in combination with the Functional Assessment Measure (FAM) scale, the other study 46 validating only the motor subscale in the Scandinavian language.…”

“…Follow-up rate; statistical analyses Thirteen studies [25][26][27]29,30,32,33,[41][42][43]50,51,58 reported data on follow-up. Usually, an acceptable overall follow-up rate is considered to be 80% or more of participants whose exposures were measured at baseline.…”